On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 14:54 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 16:48 -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> > We've had a convention of not including the prompt at all. This is
> > different from other UNIX documentation. However, I don't think anyone
> > has complained.
> >
> > My guess is, the prompt was dropped for clarity sake? In RH docs, we
> > use <prompt> only when specifically discussing the prompt, otherwise
> > it's left out for visual clarity, I reckon.
>
>
> Hmm.. My concern about this is that since sometimes a prompt is
> necessary eg to differentiate between stationX and stationY in a
> networking example, we should always show a prompt. Otherwise it looks
> wierd and inconsistent to have a prompt for some commands, but not for
> others.
Consistency is most important.
I think, for training docs, for example, it makes sense to show the
prompt. I am split about plain documentation.
We could have a standard like this:
* use full prompt [user@host] $ the first time or when you show the
differences between hosts
* use the $ or # to show the prompt, and also shows (traditional) UID 0
v. other user
Personally, I'm going to get tired of including the prompt, but I got
used to other stuff, so I won't complain. :)
For networking, I'd bend on this one too. :-)
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Documentation Project:
http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/